Family Court, arrived at a conclusion that the salary of the respondent would be around Rs.25,000/to Rs.26,000/per month. Considering the same, the learned Judge, Family Court, awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/each to the petitioners towards maintenance. 26) It is to be noted that though the respondent examined R.W.2, absolutely, he cannot say that the criminal case filed by the first petitioner against the respondent was a false one. Apart from this, his evidence that the police tortured the respondenttoreturn the gold ornaments was not at all probabilized. Hence, his evidence is of no use to the respondent. Though there was no dispute about the factum of withdrawal of the amounts by the first petitioner, but it does not mean that she is not entitled to monthly maintenance. It is to be noted that according to theevidenceof R.W.3, the respondent used to give Rs.2,000/- to him and in turn he used to deposit in the account of the first petitioner.Whatever the things that were done prior to the disputes between the parties were not helpful to the respondent to defeat the claim of maintenance of the first petitioner. 27) As evident from the order in M.C.No.25 of 2014,the learned Judge, Family Court, duly considered the income of the respondent to a tune of around Rs.25,000/- and awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each to the petitioners.
